|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
If a big company breaks the law and screws you, but you signed a contract with an arbitration clause giving away your right to sue or bring class action, you don’t have a case, even if federal law says you do.
Oh, Scalia...this case seems bizarre to me. From a skim it seems even if there was a federal law guaranteeing the right to perform a class action suit, SCOTUS would have struck down the case.
Some research showed they basically already held this for individuals in AT and T versus Concepcion, though, so at least they're being consistent I suppose. I do find it frightening that companies can use EULAs and contract terms to make class actions impossible. Just hope that we don't get McDonalds/Starbucks/CVS giving you a EULA at the counter to sign to use their products to eliminate your ability to sue.
|
On June 24 2013 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 12:43 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too  Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. You make the assumption that the little guy will ever use you again. In reality, there are usually a handful of people you can choose from, and while retired judges, that doesn't guarantee impartial judgement. It's obviously not a blatant ruling for one party over another, but that doesn't mean they won't side with the repeat customer a majority of the time or keep compensation low. You make the assumption that little guys don't talk to each other. You also make the assumption that big guys don't challenge each other. Also, if there's only a few people you can choose from, and court is more expensive, who has the bargaining power? Wouldn't the arbitrator be in a great bargaining seat and therefore be very reluctant to give into a very small temptation?
Arbitration is usually done because of the contracts I laid out earlier, where one party more or less HAS to sign a contract with a company in order to get work or compete in the market place. These companies are borderline monopolies (or all major companies have the clause), or the weaker party has a very low bargaining position (low/no skill worker). Arbitration between powerful parties normally will take place in places where laws aren't applicable, like international trade disputes. Otherwise, they have negotiations to settle outside of court or they go to court.
Also, while "little guys" may talk to one another, usually arbitration requires some level of secrecy (mostly NDAs), before, during, and after arbitration. This means that a ruling that you may find incredibly unfair may go completely unheeded, as the appeal process likely goes to (some of) the same people that judged the case.
Last time I checked some arbitration data on my area, there were about 12 you could choose from. The arbitrators are normally provided by some organization that has a sort of quality control. A company will sign on with one of these organizations to handle their proceedings, but they always have the option of changing organizations.
On June 24 2013 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 13:34 Souma wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. In this case, the little guy doesn't have a choice. It's either use them or don't, but if you don't you can't make your case. Lose-lose situation. The only choice came before the signing of the contract, but the circumstances under which that took place are beyond my knowledge so it's hard to make an opinion regarding this particular case. However, I can't agree with the Supreme Court and their broad decision. This really is giving the finger to a lot of people forced into unfavorable situations. Well you have to use the arbitration process. But you aren't bound to a certain, dirty arbitrator.
Again, it's not about getting an arbitrator that will side with you every time in some cartoonishly unethical way. The arbitrators are judge and jury, so they could rule in the "little guy's" favor, and then award him $1000 on an infraction that would normally cost a company millions. Or they could require substantial amounts of evidence or ignore evidence that normally could be used in court on procedural grounds. At the end of the day, these cases could be settled 60-70% of the time in favor of the "big guy," and nobody would care except the big customer who gets to look at the data.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On June 24 2013 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 13:34 Souma wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. In this case, the little guy doesn't have a choice. It's either use them or don't, but if you don't you can't make your case. Lose-lose situation. The only choice came before the signing of the contract, but the circumstances under which that took place are beyond my knowledge so it's hard to make an opinion regarding this particular case. However, I can't agree with the Supreme Court and their broad decision. This really is giving the finger to a lot of people forced into unfavorable situations. Well you have to use the arbitration process. But you aren't bound to a certain, dirty arbitrator.
Well, like I said, in this case...
The credit card company insisted each business had to submit its claim to a private arbitrator employed by American Express.
|
On June 24 2013 14:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 13:34 Souma wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. In this case, the little guy doesn't have a choice. It's either use them or don't, but if you don't you can't make your case. Lose-lose situation. The only choice came before the signing of the contract, but the circumstances under which that took place are beyond my knowledge so it's hard to make an opinion regarding this particular case. However, I can't agree with the Supreme Court and their broad decision. This really is giving the finger to a lot of people forced into unfavorable situations. Well you have to use the arbitration process. But you aren't bound to a certain, dirty arbitrator. Well, like I said, in this case... Show nested quote +The credit card company insisted each business had to submit its claim to a private arbitrator employed by American Express.
Is that a fact or just something the article wrote?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I don't know man lol. Go find me a copy of their contract. :p
|
On June 24 2013 14:16 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 12:43 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. You make the assumption that the little guy will ever use you again. In reality, there are usually a handful of people you can choose from, and while retired judges, that doesn't guarantee impartial judgement. It's obviously not a blatant ruling for one party over another, but that doesn't mean they won't side with the repeat customer a majority of the time or keep compensation low. You make the assumption that little guys don't talk to each other. You also make the assumption that big guys don't challenge each other. Also, if there's only a few people you can choose from, and court is more expensive, who has the bargaining power? Wouldn't the arbitrator be in a great bargaining seat and therefore be very reluctant to give into a very small temptation? Arbitration is usually done because of the contracts I laid out earlier, where one party more or less HAS to sign a contract with a company in order to get work or compete in the market place. These companies are borderline monopolies (or all major companies have the clause), or the weaker party has a very low bargaining position (low/no skill worker). Arbitration between powerful parties normally will take place in places where laws aren't applicable, like international trade disputes. Otherwise, they have negotiations to settle outside of court or they go to court. Also, while "little guys" may talk to one another, usually arbitration requires some level of secrecy (mostly NDAs), before, during, and after arbitration. This means that a ruling that you may find incredibly unfair may go completely unheeded, as the appeal process likely goes to (some of) the same people that judged the case. Last time I checked some arbitration data on my area, there were about 12 you could choose from. The arbitrators are normally provided by some organization that has a sort of quality control. A company will sign on with one of these organizations to handle their proceedings, but they always have the option of changing organizations. Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 13:34 Souma wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:ah America ..... He said the law is not obligated to make court action affordable to all parties . Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason. even if federal law says you do . So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract. Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign. How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. In this case, the little guy doesn't have a choice. It's either use them or don't, but if you don't you can't make your case. Lose-lose situation. The only choice came before the signing of the contract, but the circumstances under which that took place are beyond my knowledge so it's hard to make an opinion regarding this particular case. However, I can't agree with the Supreme Court and their broad decision. This really is giving the finger to a lot of people forced into unfavorable situations. Well you have to use the arbitration process. But you aren't bound to a certain, dirty arbitrator. Again, it's not about getting an arbitrator that will side with you every time in some cartoonishly unethical way. The arbitrators are judge and jury, so they could rule in the "little guy's" favor, and then award him $1000 on an infraction that would normally cost a company millions. Or they could require substantial amounts of evidence or ignore evidence that normally could be used in court on procedural grounds. At the end of the day, these cases could be settled 60-70% of the time in favor of the "big guy," and nobody would care except the big customer who gets to look at the data.
You seem pretty paranoid about the arbitration process to me. Like why would it be fair between two big companies, or two small companies, but not a big one and a small one? Once the pool is tainted, it's tainted. Why would arbitration be so popular if it's a tainted process and why isn't this a well known thing?
|
|
|
You probably want to start here: the Supreme Court decision
The dissent uses the extreme example of appointing the CEO of Amex as the arbitrator, so I don't think the arbitrator having a conflict of interest was an issue in the case. Italian Color's biggest problem was that they needed expert witnesses to prove their claims but the cost of an expert would have exceeded their claim, and they used that as the basis to say the arbitration waiver was unfair and they should be allowed to join a class, undoing the arbitration clause.
EDIT: And the PDF Jonny put up explicitly says the party making the claim can choose either the National Arbitration Forum or the American Arbitration Association. If Amex chooses one, the merchant can say they want the other.
EDIT: The problem with the decision isn't the arbitrator and I think that part of the dissent is not effective. IMO the bigger problem is that Amex can intimidate many merchants like Italian Colors from ever even bringing a claim by raising the costs of proving a successful claim. This is where monopolistic power becomes very strong, because merchants can't choose an alternative that may have a fairer arbitration process.
|
On June 24 2013 14:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 14:16 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 12:43 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:
ah America .....
[quote]. Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason.
[quote]. So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract.
Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign.
How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:
ah America .....
[quote]. Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason.
[quote]. So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract.
Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign.
How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. You make the assumption that the little guy will ever use you again. In reality, there are usually a handful of people you can choose from, and while retired judges, that doesn't guarantee impartial judgement. It's obviously not a blatant ruling for one party over another, but that doesn't mean they won't side with the repeat customer a majority of the time or keep compensation low. You make the assumption that little guys don't talk to each other. You also make the assumption that big guys don't challenge each other. Also, if there's only a few people you can choose from, and court is more expensive, who has the bargaining power? Wouldn't the arbitrator be in a great bargaining seat and therefore be very reluctant to give into a very small temptation? Arbitration is usually done because of the contracts I laid out earlier, where one party more or less HAS to sign a contract with a company in order to get work or compete in the market place. These companies are borderline monopolies (or all major companies have the clause), or the weaker party has a very low bargaining position (low/no skill worker). Arbitration between powerful parties normally will take place in places where laws aren't applicable, like international trade disputes. Otherwise, they have negotiations to settle outside of court or they go to court. Also, while "little guys" may talk to one another, usually arbitration requires some level of secrecy (mostly NDAs), before, during, and after arbitration. This means that a ruling that you may find incredibly unfair may go completely unheeded, as the appeal process likely goes to (some of) the same people that judged the case. Last time I checked some arbitration data on my area, there were about 12 you could choose from. The arbitrators are normally provided by some organization that has a sort of quality control. A company will sign on with one of these organizations to handle their proceedings, but they always have the option of changing organizations. On June 24 2013 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 13:34 Souma wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:
ah America .....
[quote]. Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason.
[quote]. So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract.
Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign.
How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:12 Gorsameth wrote:
ah America .....
[quote]. Except you know the whole system works on the basis that anyone should be able to sue if there is legitimate reason.
[quote]. So what is the point of laws if we can arbitrary break them because of contract.
Why cant a doctor kill me if i sign a paper yet a company can do anything it wants so long as i sign.
How the hell do people like this get appointed to the supreme court when this very decision undermines everything that law stands for. Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts). The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. In this case, the little guy doesn't have a choice. It's either use them or don't, but if you don't you can't make your case. Lose-lose situation. The only choice came before the signing of the contract, but the circumstances under which that took place are beyond my knowledge so it's hard to make an opinion regarding this particular case. However, I can't agree with the Supreme Court and their broad decision. This really is giving the finger to a lot of people forced into unfavorable situations. Well you have to use the arbitration process. But you aren't bound to a certain, dirty arbitrator. Again, it's not about getting an arbitrator that will side with you every time in some cartoonishly unethical way. The arbitrators are judge and jury, so they could rule in the "little guy's" favor, and then award him $1000 on an infraction that would normally cost a company millions. Or they could require substantial amounts of evidence or ignore evidence that normally could be used in court on procedural grounds. At the end of the day, these cases could be settled 60-70% of the time in favor of the "big guy," and nobody would care except the big customer who gets to look at the data. You seem pretty paranoid about the arbitration process to me. Like why would it be fair between two big companies, or two small companies, but not a big one and a small one? Once the pool is tainted, it's tainted. Why would arbitration be so popular if it's a tainted process and why isn't this a well known thing?
Because of the secrecy revolving around them. It's some of the same issues we have with current tech patents, where so much is settled outside of court that it's hard to find a clear example of people abusing the law/system in their favor, but people on the ground know of the issues.
I take special offense to the process specifically because it takes the place of a structure provided by the government, which is designed to be as impartial as possible with plenty of opportunities for appeal. It even prohibits appealing the process to the courts. What if you DO end up with the most shady, bullshit, ridiculous ruling against you? You can appeal to a body that is directly related to the ones that made the crappy ruling in the first place, but they aren't bound by any law or statute to even take your claim seriously. You can't go to the media or the public, because the decision is binding and most likely under some agreement of secrecy, which will cause you further lawsuits (and forfeit of any amount possibly awarded) to divulge the details of. You're stuck, screwed out of your claim, and no way to expose the corruption.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On June 24 2013 15:06 coverpunch wrote:You probably want to start here: the Supreme Court decisionThe dissent uses the extreme example of appointing the CEO of Amex as the arbitrator, so I don't think the arbitrator having a conflict of interest was an issue in the case. Italian Color's biggest problem was that they needed expert witnesses to prove their claims but the cost of an expert would have exceeded their claim, and they used that as the basis to say the arbitration waiver was unfair and they should be allowed to join a class, undoing the arbitration clause. EDIT: And the PDF Jonny put up explicitly says the party making the claim can choose either the National Arbitration Forum or the American Arbitration Association. If Amex chooses one, the merchant can say they want the other. EDIT: The problem with the decision isn't the arbitrator and I think that part of the dissent is not effective. IMO the bigger problem is that Amex can intimidate many merchants like Italian Colors from ever even bringing a claim by raising the costs of proving a successful claim. This is where monopolistic power becomes very strong, because merchants can't choose an alternative that may have a fairer arbitration process.
Oh man, a quick search on the NAF didn't provide any comforting results. =x Couldn't find anything about the AAA, but in any case, being forced to choose one out of the two is still really limiting.
After a bit of research, it seems some people in Congress have been trying to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act to prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses, but it hasn't gone anywhere. imo this is the problem to me - being forced into arbitration and not allowed to litigate (the limit of just two arbitrating firms to choose from is just the cherry on top).
|
You can appeal an arbitration decision in court, but it has to be an egregious problem, such as the arbitrator refusing to look at evidence or making a corrupt decision.
It's not nearly as bad as you think it is. Arbitrators are committed to making a decision agreeable for both parties. The only real complaint you might have is that arbitrators don't issue punitive awards, so a big company like Amex can abuse many merchants but would only pay recourse damages to those that complain loud enough to go to arbitration. Most people do not want to go through that so they just take it and Amex gets away with bad practices.
Think of it more like mail-in rewards. The problem with mail-in rewards isn't that the company refuses to pay, it's that most people are too lazy to ever mail it in.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
You'd think so, but reading these articles about NAF isn't exactly comforting, as I've mentioned. But then again, what do I know? I've never had to deal with them. ;(
+ Show Spoiler [The articles] + http://www.startribune.com/business/50729852.html?page=2&c=yAt Tuesday's news conference, Richard Neely, a retired chief justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, said he handled a handful of National Arbitration Forum claims for $150 each after he retired but stopped receiving cases after he declined to award fees to creditors that he did not believe were permitted under law. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2009-07-14-credit-card-arbitration-firm-lawsuit_N.htmAnd from Wiki: In response to the suit, NAF and the Minnesota Attorney General reached a settlement, in which The National Arbitration Forum agreed to stop accepting new consumer arbitration claims by 24 July 2009.
"Under the settlement, the National Arbitration Forum will, by the end of the week, stop accepting any new consumer arbitrations or in any manner participate in the processing or administering of new consumer arbitrations. The company will permanently stop administering arbitrations involving consumer debt, including credit cards, consumer loans, telecommunications, utilities, health care, and consumer leases."
|
Hah, the Fisher v. University of Texas decision is basically a non-decision. All the Court does is say that the lower courts screwed up by failing to properly apply a strict scrutiny, and then orders them to try again. This will be back up to the Supreme Court in a few years for the real decision.
|
On June 24 2013 23:37 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, the Fisher v. University of Texas decision is basically a non-decision. All the Court does is say that the lower courts screwed up by failing to properly apply a strict scrutiny, and then orders them to try again. This will be back up to the Supreme Court in a few years for the real decision.
Well the balance is tipped slightly to Fisher (so in the long run it's good for her), but in the short term nothing really changes, so nobody's really upset. I disapprove of this extension.
And the delaying of the gay marriage related decision as well.
|
The SCOTUS is on a roll of terrible decisions.
|
On June 24 2013 15:06 coverpunch wrote:You probably want to start here: the Supreme Court decisionThe dissent uses the extreme example of appointing the CEO of Amex as the arbitrator, so I don't think the arbitrator having a conflict of interest was an issue in the case. Italian Color's biggest problem was that they needed expert witnesses to prove their claims but the cost of an expert would have exceeded their claim, and they used that as the basis to say the arbitration waiver was unfair and they should be allowed to join a class, undoing the arbitration clause. EDIT: And the PDF Jonny put up explicitly says the party making the claim can choose either the National Arbitration Forum or the American Arbitration Association. If Amex chooses one, the merchant can say they want the other. EDIT: The problem with the decision isn't the arbitrator and I think that part of the dissent is not effective. IMO the bigger problem is that Amex can intimidate many merchants like Italian Colors from ever even bringing a claim by raising the costs of proving a successful claim. This is where monopolistic power becomes very strong, because merchants can't choose an alternative that may have a fairer arbitration process.
Italian Color claimed that they needed an expensive expert to be successful in arbitration. They also claimed that class action was the only cost effective way to get that expert. But that's not necessarily true. As the SC pointed out they could hire an expert to be the arbitrator (under orders to keep costs down), or pool resources pre-arbitration in order to get the needed expert.
Without arbitration the monopolist has more power. Court is more expensive so it would make it easier for a big player to sue a little guy into oblivion.
On June 24 2013 15:16 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 14:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 14:16 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 13:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 12:43 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts).
The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts).
The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. You make the assumption that the little guy will ever use you again. In reality, there are usually a handful of people you can choose from, and while retired judges, that doesn't guarantee impartial judgement. It's obviously not a blatant ruling for one party over another, but that doesn't mean they won't side with the repeat customer a majority of the time or keep compensation low. You make the assumption that little guys don't talk to each other. You also make the assumption that big guys don't challenge each other. Also, if there's only a few people you can choose from, and court is more expensive, who has the bargaining power? Wouldn't the arbitrator be in a great bargaining seat and therefore be very reluctant to give into a very small temptation? Arbitration is usually done because of the contracts I laid out earlier, where one party more or less HAS to sign a contract with a company in order to get work or compete in the market place. These companies are borderline monopolies (or all major companies have the clause), or the weaker party has a very low bargaining position (low/no skill worker). Arbitration between powerful parties normally will take place in places where laws aren't applicable, like international trade disputes. Otherwise, they have negotiations to settle outside of court or they go to court. Also, while "little guys" may talk to one another, usually arbitration requires some level of secrecy (mostly NDAs), before, during, and after arbitration. This means that a ruling that you may find incredibly unfair may go completely unheeded, as the appeal process likely goes to (some of) the same people that judged the case. Last time I checked some arbitration data on my area, there were about 12 you could choose from. The arbitrators are normally provided by some organization that has a sort of quality control. A company will sign on with one of these organizations to handle their proceedings, but they always have the option of changing organizations. On June 24 2013 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 13:34 Souma wrote:On June 24 2013 11:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 11:37 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 10:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 24 2013 09:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts).
The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. And each case is presented as an isolated incident, outside of scrutiny of the public and without a record of arguments. You can't use the arbitration decision in a court case to challenge a current law or validity of an agreement. Not only that, but arbitration is a business serving return clients who pay them, so there's the problem of impartial ruling and fairness. These small companies (and individuals) aren't likely to go into arbitration more than a few times in their entire lifetimes, but a corporation like AmEx will use this system countless times this year alone. My understanding is that arbitrators are neutral third parties. I'm sure exceptions exist, though that's sometimes true for the courts as well. On June 24 2013 10:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2013 09:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Well, the contract doesn't allow AmEx to violate the law. It just prescribes the venue for addressing the violation (arbitration rather than the courts).
The whole point of arbitration is that it's cheaper than the courts. Except for the part where arbitration isnt supervised, not impartial (tho granted i wouldnt call the us justice system impartial to begin with). Nor does a quick google search seem to imply that this is even legally binding. Aka it stacks the deck to heavily in the cooperation favor that any notion of "fair" is hard to find. The Dutch use arbitration extensively too Arbitration is done by 3rd parties, but that doesn't mean they're actually impartial. About the only partiality you have in government courts (outside of elected judges) occurs with personal views and leanings (and possibly when lunch was served). For arbitration, however, you introduce a very power factor: money/business. Arbitration is provided by either a company or a contractor who has the incentive to continue working. If most of the arbitration work you do is done by a handful of companies/individuals and their disputes with random people, you're going to be inclined to give them partial treatment or not see further business. But if you are seen as partial you lose all business. The little guy you keep screwing will never agree to use you. In this case, the little guy doesn't have a choice. It's either use them or don't, but if you don't you can't make your case. Lose-lose situation. The only choice came before the signing of the contract, but the circumstances under which that took place are beyond my knowledge so it's hard to make an opinion regarding this particular case. However, I can't agree with the Supreme Court and their broad decision. This really is giving the finger to a lot of people forced into unfavorable situations. Well you have to use the arbitration process. But you aren't bound to a certain, dirty arbitrator. Again, it's not about getting an arbitrator that will side with you every time in some cartoonishly unethical way. The arbitrators are judge and jury, so they could rule in the "little guy's" favor, and then award him $1000 on an infraction that would normally cost a company millions. Or they could require substantial amounts of evidence or ignore evidence that normally could be used in court on procedural grounds. At the end of the day, these cases could be settled 60-70% of the time in favor of the "big guy," and nobody would care except the big customer who gets to look at the data. You seem pretty paranoid about the arbitration process to me. Like why would it be fair between two big companies, or two small companies, but not a big one and a small one? Once the pool is tainted, it's tainted. Why would arbitration be so popular if it's a tainted process and why isn't this a well known thing? Because of the secrecy revolving around them. It's some of the same issues we have with current tech patents, where so much is settled outside of court that it's hard to find a clear example of people abusing the law/system in their favor, but people on the ground know of the issues. I take special offense to the process specifically because it takes the place of a structure provided by the government, which is designed to be as impartial as possible with plenty of opportunities for appeal. It even prohibits appealing the process to the courts. What if you DO end up with the most shady, bullshit, ridiculous ruling against you? You can appeal to a body that is directly related to the ones that made the crappy ruling in the first place, but they aren't bound by any law or statute to even take your claim seriously. You can't go to the media or the public, because the decision is binding and most likely under some agreement of secrecy, which will cause you further lawsuits (and forfeit of any amount possibly awarded) to divulge the details of. You're stuck, screwed out of your claim, and no way to expose the corruption.
Cost of business - just move on. In the Italian Colors case they could be required to pay arbitration fees. You do have a contract in place so neither party should be able to really screw over the other. Theoretically you could, but that is neither here nor there.
|
United States41961 Posts
If customers demand X of a business to operate and X is provided by a monopoly then small businesses are going to get exploited and go under where larger businesses could potentially use their size to bargain. Sufficiently large businesses might even pressure the provider of X to deliberately target smaller competitors. Whenever this kind of stuff happens free market competition and the efficiency and innovation that results from competition is the loser.
|
On June 25 2013 00:57 KwarK wrote:
If customers demand X of a business to operate and X is provided by a monopoly then small businesses are going to get exploited and go under where larger businesses could potentially use their size to bargain. Sufficiently large businesses might even pressure the provider of X to deliberately target smaller competitors. Whenever this kind of stuff happens free market competition and the efficiency and innovation that results from competition is the loser.
OK, but that monopoly doesn't exist (particularly with regards to AmEx). And if it did, it's illegal so the government can always intervene.
|
United States41961 Posts
Credit card operators provide a service that businesses pretty much need to offer their customers.
|
On June 25 2013 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Credit card operators provide a service that businesses pretty much need to offer their customers.
Yes, operators (plural). So not monopoly.
Merchants have revolted against AmEx in the past (Boston Fee Party) and as a result AmEx isn't as popular as it once was. Also, the government routinely investigates all the cc companies whenever it thinks they have too much power in a market or their practices are unfair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
